21stCenturyTEFL

Thursday, 7 April 2016

A few weeks ago, while I was watching Quentin Tarantino’s Inglorious Bastards on TV I managed to get myself into a bit of a stand-off on Twitter whilst discussing the concept of native Vs non-native speakers as teachers. At first, the discussion was a bit of a side-note whilst I marveled at Christopher Waltz’s glorious mustache and equally glorious acting. However, after a while, the movie faded into the background and I got quite involved in the debate.

So, how did the discussion pan out? If I am brutally honest, I do not remember what dragged me into the debate. But, the discussion revolved around one account holder’s assertion that we now work in a highly discriminatory environment where non-native teachers are treated as second class citizens. There were a couple of others who were jumping in and arguing that, because non-natives have had to learn English themselves, they are better equipped to empathize with and understand the needs of students. One lady also even chimed in with her view that the majority of ESL teachers had only taken up the profession because they had failed in other fields and that a good chunk of male ESL teachers only decided to teach as a way of meeting female students.

It is safe to say that I didn’t agree with everything I heard. However, there were some very relevant points in there. Yet, probably the thing that struck me most about the whole discussion was the strength of feeling held by some non-native speakers. before I got myself entangled in the debate, I really didn’t get how pi$$ed off some non-natives were – words like injustice and discrimination are pretty strong and were used a lot.

For the record, I tried to be fair and balanced with my comments in the discussion. I agreed that some ESL teachers have only started to teach because their careers in marketing or in PR fell foul of the financial crisis. I also fully concurred with the idea that having the experience of learning a language yourself really does help you in the classroom. In fact, it is a question I always discuss in interviews. It is true that there are too many native-speakers who speak only English and are a little too one-dimensional because of that (I speak passable, if not fluent, French in case anyone was wondering). I also countered that the comment about male teachers may be true of a small percentage of men in some countries, but went on to add that it was short-sighted, ignorant and offensive to the vast majority (for the record the lady who made that statement did not reply to my comment).

I feel I am pretty well placed to weigh into this discussion and look at both sides of the argument. I currently work in UAE and head a team with no purely native-speakers; aside from me it is all non-native. Before that, I worked for Wall Street Institute where corporate policy – in many countries – is for native-speakers only. And, if I can have a moment of honesty and confession, I got into this whole racket because I was de-motivated with my job in newspapers … Obviously, I then grew to love teaching English. So, where do I stand?

TEACHING WITH MISS CHOI IN KOREA – A FANTASTIC NON-NATIVE TEACHER

I believe that there is no single correct answer here. The impression many of the contributors to the debate gave was that across the globe there are thousands of non-native teachers who are truly wonderful at their jobs but are being denied employment by a string of drunk, unqualified, incompetent, womanizing native-speakers. I am exaggerating a little here for effect, but some of the comments were not too far away from that. I don’t think this is true. There are some great native speakers and there are some stinkers. However, the same is also true of non-natives. I would like to look at a few key points in the discussion:

MARKETING

Let’s get this one out of the way first because it is a bug-bear for many non-natives, often with much justification. Lots of schools like to trot out their native-speakers as a big marketing tool and a way of differentiating them from the competition next door. Wall Street use this as point number one in their marketing. However, the idea is not confined to global chains. When I worked in Korea way back in 2004, my wongjannim (Headmaster) greeted me upon my arrival and said: “Now we have foreigner, more students come” (He actually said it like that as his English was not so great). When the competing school also hired a teacher from England, we retaliated by hiring a second (and patently superfluous native-speaker). There is not much I can say about using native speakers for marketing. It happens a lot and is the key reason we have the atmosphere of ‘discrimination’. As we speak you can watch videos of me promoting my universities English courses here in Dubai. Just because it is good for marketing does not mean it is great for education … also I am not sure videos of my ugly mug are good for marketing either.

MY SCHOOL IN KOREA WHERE I ALMOST PURELY A MARKETING TOOL

MOTIVATION

“Many of these imposters did not even want to be teachers, they were just losers who couldn’t find another job”. This is the first area where I take issue. It is true, there are many native-speakers who just use EFL as a way of travelling for free and are not so dedicated to their students’ progress. I can’t argue with that. In fact, I started out like that. But, the above quote is hugely one-dimensional. First of all, not all native-speakers are there just because they couldn’t get a better job in England or the US. And, second, some may start looking simply to travel or make a little cash, but they will often soon grow to love teaching.

… OR EQUIVALENT

This, for me, as a DOS is the big area to look at. It is also one I think many non-native speakers do not give enough attention to. I discussed with many of the people on Twitter the wording of job adverts. I concurred that they should not simply say “Native Speaker”. The caveat “Or equivalent” should certainly be added. It is what I write on my job ads. But, and here is the big issue here. It really does have to be “equivalent”. This is an extract from an actual job application I received last month:

“I HAVE EXCELLENT COMMUNICATION SKILLS BOTH VERBAL AND WRITTEN AT ALL LEVELS, REGARDING MY VERBAL SKILLS, I HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH PEOPLE FROM DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS AND AGE GROUPS THROUGH MY ROLES IN TEACHING AND TRAINING, REGARDING MY WRITTEN SKILLS, I HAVE BEEN PREPARING AND PRESENTING THE TEACHING MATERIAL IN AN EASY, INTERESTING AND UNDERSTANDABLE MANNER THROUGH MY ROLE AS AN ENGLISH TEACHER, ALSO, I HAVE BEEN PREPARING STUDENTS’ CENTERED ACTIVITIES, AS I BELIEVE IN TEACHING THROUGH USING STUDENTS’ CENTERED ACTIVITIES INCLUDING GROUP AND PAIR DISCUSSIONS, ROLE PLAY AND WORK SHEETS WHERE STUDENTS DISCUSS TOGETHER THE ACTIVITIES, IN ADDITION…” (IT WENT ON FOR A LONG TIME WITHOUT A FULL-STOP)

If you were a paying customer would you want this person – who cannot write in sentences – teaching you English? Thought not.

So, where does this all leave us? I don’t think there is any great conclusion to draw on either side of the debate. And, I have only touched on this issue briefly, I acknowledge that. But, I would argue that it is far more complex than both sides of it would have us believe. Native-speakers are certainly not the be all and end all. We certainly should not discriminate against non-natives. But, some of the notions of noble non-natives being unfairly discriminated against are also pretty damn fanciful.

As a footnote, I hope everyone has noticed I have steered clear of discussing translation in class and whether this is something that is encouraged by employing non-native speakers. Equally, I have pulled away from the idea of native-speakers encouraging communicative mono-lingual environments. These are important, but they are debates for another day.

Saturday, 2 August 2014

This may not surprise you, but I plan to start this article by sharing some experiences of none from China. I want to go back all the way to 2006 when I was working for ClarkMorgan corporate training. The GM of the company was a huge fan of NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming). He was desperately keen to ensure it was something that all his trainers were fully-versed in and could use in the classroom. To that end, we did quite a bit of training that was very NLP-centered. If I am honest, it really wasn't my cup of tea. The discipline focuses on using the brain in different was so as to be more effective in life of, as in our case, more effective in the classroom. I liked some of the ideas, but I really didn't think it would have too much practical value for me. However, I certainly did not object to the training because, whether I bought into the material or not, it provided me with some new skills and a slightly different outlook.

I was no great fan of NLP, but I was - and still am - a great fan of developing my skill-set. You should be too! In recent years, the development of the CELTA and other TESOL courses means that there is a far greater degree of standardization in teacher qualifications and competencies. I remember when I started out in 2004, that was really not the case. There were far more jobs open to English speakers with no qualifications and the variety in the quality of qualifications on show was far greater. Of the people I knew in my early years of teaching in China and Korea, there weren't many CELTA grads and quite a few got through on charm and being British alone.

As great as teaching qualifications are - and I am deeply proud of my DipTESOL - I am very much of the opinion that they should really only represent the beginning of a teacher's education and development. A good teacher should always be looking to advance himself or herself. I want to point to important issues here. The first is that it is the height of laziness to rest on our CELTA laurels and think to ourselves that we have all the knowledge that we need to teach students English. Teaching qualifications give us a foundation, but there is always a pressing need to build on that foundation in order to do more. Not doing this leaves us phoning our classes in to a degree. A teacher who does not push on gives a good class, but could certainly do better. Sadly, I have encountered plenty of teachers like this. It is an area I always look at in an interview. A favorite question of mine is, "What types of training would you be hoping for us to deliver to you?". If I had a dollar for every time I heard answer like, "I feel the CELTA has prepared me for the classroom" or "I think I already have the key skills to succeed". I also encountered it when I was running a large school in Istanbul. Each time I tried to instigate knowlesge -sharing or brainstorming sessions for new techniques I had one teacher who would be ready with the phrase "When I did my CELTA ... ". Invariably it was followed by a negative response to a suggestion.

That first point looks at how not embracing further development limits teachers and has a negative impact on the students. However, it can also have a negative impact in teachers themselves. Teachers who are happy with what they have limit themselves in terms recruitment. Around four.months ago when I was working in France, I advertised a vacancy for a full-time teacher. I received over 50 CVs from across the region and from across the globe. Amongst that was a large degree of chaff. However, I had about 20 with respectable qualifications and varying degrees of experience. Very few of the teachers, though, seemed to have done more in order to develop. There were a couple of candidates, however, who seemed to make the effort to go a bit further. One had done courses in community development and the other had done sports coaching qualifications and both were able to explain how they believed these divergent qualifications helped them to become better teachers. Ultimately, the 'sports coach' received an offer for money than I could offer. The 'community developer' proved to be a fantastic hire and I believe the extra dimension she could offer was truly valuable.

At this point, I want to make one thing clear. When I talk about extra education, I am not focusing on a grammar teaching certificate or a young learners course. Rather, I mean adding something a bit different to push skill boundaries in order to be able to teach better classes and to differentiate in the job market. To illustrate my point, I would like to give examples of two courses I have undertaken. The first was a few years ago when I was working in China. As something of a perk/internal development opportunity my employer, Wall Street English, offered me the chance to do an online management qualification. It was not an accredited teaching certificate, but it gave me more knowledge and experience. It certainly helped when I taught Business English and when I taught some of the more technical aspects of General English. The second comes from right now. I recently discovered the website coursera (Google it!) which offers free online courses from some very impressive universities. I have signed up for a few of these. They are not directly related to TEFL, but they are all education themed and I really hope they will help me diversify as a teacher. I am currently really enjoying a course about online learning run by the University of New South Wales.

The crux of this piece is that it is hugely beneficial for both your students and you as a teacher if you try to diversify and add different knowledge and skills to your talent set.

The nucleus of this story comes from my time in Turkey. It actually comes from my very first week in the country when I was working in the rather pleasant confines of the capital Ankara. If I recall correctly it was a rather cold and windy afternoon and, because of the inclement weather, I was eating my lunch in the school. As I munched away on a rather good kebab, one of my students came across to the table at which I was sitting and asked if he could join. He took a seat and we engaged in some rather inoffensive small-talk about the weather and football before he broached a far more interesting subject. He said he had been in a couple of my classes and asked if I had done any theatrical training.

It seemed a rather unusual question, so I asked him why he had posed it. He explained that he enjoyed the way that I gave real-life examples to explain vocabulary because he thought that I really committed myself to the example as though I were playing a part in a play. I thanked him for the compliment before explaining that I had no theater training at all. He told me that my answer surprised him and that he had recently been involved in a workshop for high-school and university teachers in Ankara that had focused on using theatrical skills to help teachers give extra color to their classes. This had led him to wonder if I had done something similar.

My student's comments got me thinking about whether I was something of a drama queen in the classroom and if that was actually adding a whole different element to my classes. The idea lingered as I taught more and more classes in Turkey. And, I have to admit, I think he had a point. I noticed myself using accents and differentt voices more and more as I explained certain points and set-up activities. It also got me thinking back to my time in China and to one of the best teachers/trainers I ever worked with. His name was Jeff and whenever he dropped any Chinese language into his classes - he did this quite a bit when doing technical Business English - he took on a whole other persona. It worked fantastically well in pulling in the students. I began to think that the training he attended was a worthwhile idea. The ability to drop a few dramatic moments into a class could really add color to classes.

Another interesting take on the subject came from my girlfriend, who often used to drop by my school and watch some of my classes. She pointed out that I was like two different people. The real Paul and 'Teacher Paul'. She explained that she felt I was like a chariacature of myself when I was in the classroom. I was louder, more outgoing and tried to tell more jokes. She said it felt like I seemed to have far fewer inhibitions in the classroom. Her comments really got me thinking and pushed me into a more existential line of thinking. Do we all play a role as 'the teacher'? Or, should we play that role? If we look at the classroom like a stage, it gives the teacher the opportunity to hide any shyness or inhibitions and bring great 'personality' to the class - even if it is not their own real-life personality. I was certainly doing that to an extent and I have, in the past, worked with teachers who were extremely different inside the classroom compared to outside.

I am not 100% sure what my conclusions are on this topic. I know for sure that my student was pretty astute and spotted something that I had missed about myself. I did use a certain dramatic sense in my classes and it seemed to work. For the record, it still does and I would recommend a bit of theater to any teacher. Whether this means a few new voices and body movements or the creation of a teacher persona I am not sure. I would proffer the opinion that for naturally confident teachers a bit of theater is enough. However for those that are not so bursting with self-assurance playing the role of the confident teacher is a great way to approach delivering fun classes.

Tuesday, 22 July 2014

I am sure
we have all encountered one in our teaching careers: the student who
just doesn't seem to learn and cannot make the progress they should.
He or she is the one who is always in the class, but just never sees
to get what is going on and never seems to get any better. Months
into his or her course and he or she still answers in monosyllabic
utterances and cannot form even the basic tenses. For example:

"What
did you do this weekend Philippe?"

"I
beach."

For many
students like this, the lack of progress simply cannot be put down to
a lack of effort. I used the name Philippe above because it reminded
me of a student I encountered in France. He came to class religiously
and worked really hard at his English, but his progress never got any
faster than glacial. It was a really upsetting station for everyone.
He was frustrated and unhappy at his lack of progress and my teaching
team were unhappy at being unable to fix the problems he was facing.
This begs the question: Why had it all gone so wrong?

I believe
the reason that Phil and a lot of other students really struggle to
make progress is not about learning English. Rather, I believe it is
about learning how to learn. Phil was a classic example because he
had started to learn in state school where he was taught in large
classes with some pretty antiquated methodologies. Because of this,
he had some really bad language-learning habits that he found
difficult/impossible to break. For example:

He
translated every last word from English into French before he tried
to speak. As a consequence his fluency was awful and by the time he
had flicked between languages, the conversation or the activity had
passed him by.

He
fixated on grammar. Everything was about forming and conjugating
verbs. He felt that if he knew go/went/gone or eat/ate/eaten he was
mastering the language. He spent hours memorising stuff like this.
But, he never actually practised using them in conversation and,
thus, found himself making repeated mistakes whenever he actually
needed to speak and to use them.

He
wanted to take notes constantly. Every class he attended he would
pull out a leather notebook and begin scrawling for the full hour.
He spent so much time writing things down in French that he had no
chance to speak English.

The
issue with Phil was not his work-ethic or even his ability to speak
English. It was his study habits. He thought he was doing things to
make progress when, in fact, he was doing the exact opposite. This
brings us to the main point of this blog entry. It is not just a
teacher's job to teach the student the language; it is also the
teacher's job to show the students the best habits to do that.

Obviously,
the exact details of this will change depending on the course. I
encountered Phil whilst working for Wall
Street English where there was a great focus on conversational
English and communication. Had I been teaching in a university where
there was to be an exam afterwards, I would have changed my policy
and ideas on note-taking for example.

A
colleague of mine also raised a really interesting point recently
about the way we approach classes and our use of learning techniques.
He said to me:

“Paul,
have you noticed how strange it is that schools everywhere focus on
technique and preparation for exams like IELTS and TOEIC, but not so
much for real-life conversation”.

I
thought his analysis was excellent. I cannot count the hours during
which I have drilled students on skim and scan techniques for IELTS
or I have talked about different techniques for mastering the section
7 in the TOEIC – I even have my own blog for TOEIC skills and there
are countless sites dedicated to IELTS. But, many schools do not do
so much for normal English conversation and communication. It was
something I began to do in my last role in France. When I explained
to students that I was not there to teach them English but to teach
them learning skills instead, many of them looked at me like I was an
alien! However, the class took off and many students made great
progress. I believe this is an area that s currently tragically
overlooked. We need to teach students how to learn.

Saturday, 19 July 2014

This area of teaching is, in the modern age, such a hot topic that it I do not believe we can cover it in just one blog article. So, I am going to use two. This one will be for verbal feedback and the second will be for written feedback.

The stimulus for this article came when I was doing research on internet resources and began to see just how much can be done online. Let me take the example of the website englishgrammarsecrets.com, which offers quizzes for scores of different pieces of grammar. It does this in lots of different ways. It tests both the structure and usage of grammar points and, if the student gets the answer, it gives the correct answer. The quizzes and the feedback functions are sophisticated enough for the student to know whether he/she has a problem forming the grammar or in using it correctly. For example, if the student is looking at the Present Perfect he/she will be able to determine if they have a problem with conjugating the irregular verbs or identifying the correct time-defined situation in which to use it.

The above description shows just how much we can do o line in 2014. It truly is frightening. A simple - albeit very well designed website - can do an awful lot of work that teachers used to do. However, there is a limit to what websites can do. I believe that one of those limitations is in giving feedback. A website can tell a student what he/she did wrong, but it struggles to make corrections as effectively and cannot check understanding the way a teacher can. Therefore, feedback is an area where a teacher can really add value to his/her role. Again, we must look at the idea of doing more. It is not just about telling a student they are right/wrong. Giving feedback is a far richer area of teaching technique than that. To analyse how a teacher can improve feedback skills let's look at one of the failings of online technology. Most websites and online learning systems will tell the student if they are right or wrong. It is also likely to give the correct answer as well. Some super sophisticated examples might also give a brief explanation as to why the answer was wrong. So, what more can the teacher add. Below are a few points I feel are key here:

Hot-Correction: The problem with a lot of online resources is that the correction comes after the fact. The students have to answer the question and make the mistake before they get the feedback. This is not so much the case when the student is with a teacher. If we look at communicative activities where the student is using language in conversation, the teacher can get the mistake before the student has even finished his/her sentence. It is a case of nipping a problem in the bud or prevention rather than cure. This gives the opportunity for the student to have another go at using the grammar without having to review the whole activityagain. If the correction is made quickly and directly, the student might well be cured of the mistake quickly. However, if the student does not get the feedback until he/she has answered five or ten questions, that mistake is not cured so easily because he/she has made it many times without correction.

Self Correction: The teacher making corrections quickly is important in stopping mistakes before they become an issue. However, it also offers a great opportunity for the student to take an active role in the feedback process. The teacher being actively involved in the feedback gives the student an opportunity to correct himself/herself and to enjoy a far more dynamic learning experience. If the teacher points the mistake out as soon as it happens, the student has the chance to try again and give a better answer. This not only helps in allowing the student to keep speaking, but it also is great for the student's. Being able to fix a mistake is far better than being told what you did wrong.

Concept Checking:Often simply correcting a mistake is not enough. This is what poor quality teachers do and what many websites and apps can do. However, students need more. If a student makes a mistake, they will often need to know why. Have they used the wrong tense or the wrong piece of vocabulary. Obviously, giving that explanation is a function of the teacher. However, there is more to it than that. The teacher needs to know that the student has understood the correction. By asking concept check questions the teacher can see if the student really has understood.

Empathy: Nothing can be more dispiriting when learning a language than making mistakes. No-one likes to hear negative language or to see red ink across answers. However, this type of thing can often be mitigated by a teacher showing empathy and trying to help the students overcome their mistake. Apps and websites cannot do this. They simply show what is wrong.

In short, an app or a website can tell a student if they are correct or if they have made a mistake, but they cannot really give feedback. Offering feedback is a genuine opportunity for a teacher to show real worth in the classroom.

Friday, 18 July 2014

During
the five or so years for which I have worked as a Director of Studies
or an Academic Manager one of the questions I have asked most
commonly to teachers that I interviewed or to whom I delivered
training is: "What is your teaching style?". Occasionally,
I might have changed the way I phrased it and gone for something
along the lines of: "How do you like to approach your classes?".
However, the point of the question remained the same. I wanted to
understand the philosophy that the teacher brought to the classroom.

When
I ask such a question, what am I looking for? This is actually a
pretty interesting question and an area worth exploring. Of course
there are good and bad answers. If a teacher tells me about a love of
communicative activities or task-based learning, they are likely to
capture my attention – I am a sucker for activities that get
students interacting and break classroom norms. Conversely, if they
discuss a very regimented approach featuring lots of
Grammar-Translation techniques I am likely to be far less enthused.
This is not, though, the full story of my question. A philosophy that
I hold in great stead is that even a bad answer is better than no
answer. If the teacher does not seem to have a coherent philosophy to
the class that they teach, then I am inclined to question their
motivation, their commitment to teaching English and their viability
as a teacher.

In
recent weeks, though, I have been given cause to question my approach
to the question. This has come about thanks to a conversation with a
teacher who helped me look at things in a slightly different way.
When I asked him to outline his approach to classes he gave what I,
ordinarily, would have considered a weak answer. He told me, “I
like to take a flexible approach. I like to be eclectic, to mix
things up”. As soon as he said this, my inner monologue began to
scream, “Show some commitment man! Surely you have a philosophy”
If he had finished their, my opinion would have remained unchanged.
However, he continued with his explanation and things began to get
more interesting. He told me that he believed that rather than CLT or
Grammar-Translation, it should be the teacher that represented the
method.

I
found his comment interesting, so I asked him to expand. He argued
that, in his opinion at least, the methodology adopted in the
classroom was secondary to the teacher being able to reach the class
objectives. He continued by asserting that the class was very much a
case of any means necessary. If it took some translation to get past
one particular activity, then so be it. He concluded with the phrase,
“I am the teacher, it is my job to teach the students and I will do
that any way I can”.

I
will jump out right away and state that I did not agree with him for
a myriad of reasons. For example:

On
a pure and idealistic level, constantly changing philosophy and
approach undermines the teacher's character and identity in the
classroom. Ultimately, this will remove a degree of heart and
commitment from the class. The teacher loses their academic
identity. I am proud to take a communicative approach into the
classroom and I believe it defines me as a teacher. It gives me my
identity in the classroom and when I look for new teachers, I want
to find those with their own identity.

On
a far more practical level, I objected strongly to the rather
teacher-centric approach. I am a huge believer that the most
important person in the classroom is the student. The idea of the
teacher representing the method changes this and makes the teacher
far more important, too important in my opinion. The teacher-centric
approach focuses too much on how the teacher teaches rather than how
the student learns. I would argue that if the teacher becomes the
method, we will focus too much on teaching rather than learning.

I
also believe that the lack of coherence in the approach can have an
impact on the students. If the students see a clear methodology
from the teacher, they are likely to follow that and adopt strong
study habits based around the philosophy. However, if the teacher
flips between methods, the students are likely to pick up bad habits
on the way and are also likely to be confused on what is the best
way to approach learning. I would argue that part of the teacher's
role is to be a guide for the students, not just to teach them
language but to show them how to learn. This needs clarity and
consistency.

When
I worked at Wall Street English – one of the world's largest
English training companies – we had an English-only policy. The
students were clear on this. They knew that they would learn by
speaking English. The philosophy was clear. Suddenly allowing the
students to translate some vocabulary into their native language
would undermine this tremendously. The teacher-centric runs the risk
of undermining students study habits.

On
a simple level, the teacher representing the method must be
exhausting. With a communicative approach, I begin to plan my
classes with a clear idea on what I want to do. I want to encourage
speaking and communication. If I take the teacher approach, I have
scores of different techniques to consider before I can formulate my
lesson plan.

I
feel that I have some pretty compelling arguments against the idea
that the teacher represents a teaching method in himself (herself).
However, the guys kind of had a point. Or, at least, he had opened an
area that my be worth discussion. He made me ponder a few questions.
Can we get too bogged down in a methodological approach? Does it
sometimes hurt us if we cling to a method – whatever that may be –
too strongly? Are we too rigid?

Answering
the above questions is not easy. However, the emergence and
near-domination of CLT in recent years is an area we could look at.
In my entire career in academic management, I have yet to meet an
interview candidate who doesn't at some point emphasize certain
aspects of CLT. Most ESL teaching courses discuss different
methodologies, but there is an underlying focus on CLT. Also, most
schools nowadays head in a similar direction with CLT a key component
of their syllabi.

As
I have stated already, I am a huge CLT disciple and I am unlikely to
swayed towards translation or a strict grammatical approach any time
soon. Yet, I can concede that it I not always perfect and there are
times in the classroom when we could employ other areas. I would like
to think that the teacher I met served an important purpose for me.
By no means did he convince me that I needed to change everything,
but he reminded me that there is sometimes a need for flexibility and
an awareness that no method is perfect.

For this article, I am going to cast my mind back to 2006 when I was working in China. At the time, I was working for a company called ClarkMorgan and was teaching Business English to major international companies operating in China. During that period, I read an interview with one of the company's co-founders, a guy named Andy Clark. The interviewer asked him what he thought were the key attributes of a language trainer. He talked first about the importance of energy and enthusiasm before moving onto a point that really got me thinking. He said that 'presence' was one of the key things he looked for in a trainer. It was not something I had thought too much about before reading that interview, but it is something I have since mused about at great length.

Creating a sense of presence in the classroom or in a large training venue was something I worked very hard on when I was a teacher in China and elsewhere. I wanted to be able to control the room and ensure my students felt supremely confident in me, their teacher. To do this, I worked on all kinds of things. I started with simple things such as dressing a little more formally. I then started working on body language that made me look more poised and confident - holding my head higher and my shoulders back for example. I also thought about my speech. I tried to work on an authoritative tone and spent hours trying to cut the umms, ahhhhs and errrrs from my speech. I genuinely believe the work I did on creating presence and looking more authoritative made me a better teacher. It made it easier for me to gain my students trust and confidence. However I do not believe I really understood the value of presence and authority until, as an Academic Manager, I had to try to teach it.

When I was running a school in France, I had a teacher who was in many ways excellent. She had a great personality and was extremely nurturing and patient with the students. She was also well-qualified and extremely well versed in grammar. However, she struggled when students asked her questions. I remember watching her teach an intermediate level class in which the students asked her about the difference between 'I could' and 'I was able to'. She gave an excellent answer that dealt with the ideas of opportunity and execution that define the two phrases. The students, though, did not buy it. After she answered the question they turned to me to verify her answer. They didn't seem to believe her.

After the class, we reviewed what had gone wrong and why the students did not have confidence in her explanation even though it was a textbook answer. I told her what I thought: it was all about presence and authority... the presence and authority that she lacked. Identifying the problem was the easy part. Fixing it was more of a challenge. Creating presence and authority is not something you can easily do. In fact, it could be argued that it is nature rather than nurture that creates this particular quality. The difficulties notwithstanding, we decided that presence and authority was an area to work on. So, what did the teacher and I do to try to create that important quality?

In truth, it was no single thing that did the trick. Rather, it was a combination. I have outlined a few points below. They are by no means definitive, but I believe they are a start.

1. Wordiness: it is a common trait for people who are nervous to speak too much. Put someone in a stressful situation and the chances are that one of the ways that the stress will manifest itself is through the person babbling. This was a big issue for my teacher. She gave a great explanation for the grammar we were discussing. However, after she had passed on the pertinent information, she continued speaking. This made the explanation drift from authoritative to rather vague - as I observed the class I was screaming to myself "Shut up!". Not only does talking too much create an air of nervousness, but it also increases the scope for ambiguity and misunderstanding. Because of all this, we worked on giving answers that were short and clear. It made it easier for the student to understand and for the teacher to look authoritative.

2. Voice Tone: My teacher had a wonderful personality. She was extremely friendly and just loved to chat with students. She had a nice soft tone of voice that sounded very welcoming. This was great in ice-breaking activities and conversation classes, but did not cut it when she was supposed to be giving explanations. The students just did not take her seriously enough. To deal with this, we looked at the concept of comparing teaching with a doctor's appointment. The basic idea was that as great as a good bedside manner is for a doctor, you also need to be confident and trust him/her with your life. Being nice is a secondary concern. Whilst teaching isn't life and death like medicine, students need to feel confident in their teacher. This meant that while I encouraged the teacher to be friendly in certain situations, I emphasized that she needed to understand that it needed to change at other times.

3. Body Language: My teacher was super friendly and always liked to lean forward to show interest in what the students had to say. She would nod her head and smile attentively. This was great. Except, at no point did she ever lean back or hold her shoulders back or give the impression she was 100% in control. Just as with the first two points, this created the appearance of nervousness. We worked on the idea of looking more physically relaxed and keeping the back a bit straighter for more of the class.

4. Dialogue: The final point is perhaps the hardest to define, but it is also perhaps the most crucial. I did not manage to spot it and understand it in just one observation. It took a couple more classes before I could put my finger on it. After watching her closely, I noticed that she was too keen to elicit the students opinions. She loved to use phrases, "how does that sound?" "does that sound OK?" "what do you think about that?". It was all about eliciting. This encouraged the students to question the answer and offer alternate idea as if we were in a discussion activity. Of course, in some areas of the class, this is exactly what she needed to do. But, again, it was about picking the right time to be friendly and open and chatty, and the right time to give a short clear answer with no room for debate.

The crux of this article is relatively simple. It is great for a teacher to be friendly, chatty and energetic. But, at times that teacher needs to be able to show a persona of competency and clarity. The teachers needs to create a presence that will make the students trust him/her.

Paul Bacon

Paul has 10 years teaching experience, six of these are in Academic Management. He has worked in China, Turkey, Korea, Oman, France and most recently Dubai

21st Century TEFL

This blog is about the challenges teachers of English will face in the twentieth-century now that students have access to a myriad of online resources. I want to discuss the things teachers can do to go above and beyond the idea of simply giving students information. I want to ask how we can be challenging, inspiring, entertaining, motivational. I also want to think about the techniques we can use to be successful in the modern age.